user tools for cycle 1 phase ii: sofia spot

1

Universities Space Research Association

User Tools for Cycle 1Phase II: SOFIA Spot

R. Y. ShupingDCS Development Lead

L. LinDCS Engineer

J. RhoAssociate Scientist

2

Universities Space Research Association

Introduction

• Observation planning for SOFIA is composed of two parts:– Phase I: Proposal Preparation (SPT, SITE)– Phase II: AOR creation/modification

• Early decision was to not force GIs to create AORs as part of the proposal process.

• Trade study of existing Obs Planning tools was conducted in 2001: included SPOT, SEA, OASIS, and the Gemini OT.

• Trade study was reviewed in 2009 and decision was made by SMO director and ISD manager (Sept.) to go ahead with SPOT as the Phase II planning tool for SOFIA.

3

Universities Space Research Association

Intro to SPOT

• Development Effort: 6-12 FTE, 2 years before and 4 years after the launch

• Capabilities:– Detailed observing strategy : detailed

AORs including exact mapping strategy, chopping, nodding, slit selection etc.

– Excellent Visualization Tool• Archival sky images (IRAS, MSX,

2MASS, etc) specified AOR• Depth of planned observations• Moving Target visualization with orbit

parameters

4

Universities Space Research Association

Development Overview

• SSPOT development composed of two parts:– SSPOT application– AOT development and integration

• SSPOT application development is part of existing DCS 2.0 plan and schedule:– Independent of SI team– Support from IPAC SPOT team– Subject to standard QA process (SCI-US-PLA-PM21-2011)

• AOT development is parallel effort (until SSPOT app complete)– Depends on SI specification and team

5

Universities Space Research Association

SSPOT Development Personnel

• Lan Lin (< 1.0 FTE): SSPOT Development Lead– Application Development– AOT Integration

• Li Sun (< 1.0 FTE): Database interface development • Jeonghee Rho (0.25 FTE): AOT specification and IPAC

coordination– With support from USRA Scientists

• SSPOT Science Working Group: – Charter:

• Evaluate/recommend changes to GUI layout/design/functionality• Address science issues and provide algorithms (as needed)• Feature prioritization

– Membership: Shuping (Chair), Rho, de Buizer, Vacca, Sandell, Andersson, Sankrit, Maureen, John V., L. Lin, Reach (visiting), Moore (visiting).

6

Universities Space Research Association

Adapting SPOT to SOFIA: Challenges

• Separate Phase II Planning:– Additional state management required– Synchronization with the SOFIA DCS Obsplan DB

• AOT specification is fluid:– Software must handle frequent AOT updates, especially early on.

• Details of focal plane overlays (e.g. PA) depend on exact time of observation; unknown at planning time.

• SOFIA will have numerous AOTs over a long observatory lifetime:– Requires robust AOT and AOR versioning approach/system so

that users can always upgrade old AORs for use with most recent version of SSPOT.

7

Universities Space Research Association

Design Goals• User Experience

– Familiar, Intuitive Interface– Feedback

• Status, Help, Knowing where you are– Clarity

• Smart defaults• Valid state• Limits

– Network or Stand-alone– Ease of Use

• Easy to learn• Easy to install• Easy to upgrade (both application and AORs)

• Developer Experience– Use of Objected Oriented principles and design patterns– Easy to modify existing AOT– Easy to add instrument– Easy to add instrument mode

8

Universities Space Research Association

SSPOT Application Design/Implementation Activities

• Develop ConOps and derived requirements (complete)• Develop Prototype (complete)• Develop/Update V&V Plan (in-work)• Develop/Update Architectural Design (in-work)• Develop Planning DB Interface (in-work)• Update visualization functionality (chopping/nodding)• Develop additional required functionality• Develop/update test procedures for V&V• Informal Testing

Universities Space Research Association

10

Universities Space Research Association

AOT Specification

• AOT specification worked out with SI representatives for each mode, including:– Options– Constraints– Parameters– Value ranges and defaults– Conceptual diagrams as needed

• Spec then included in SI-DCS ICD and implemented as formal XML.

• Kickoff meeting with SI teams?

11

Universities Space Research Association

AOT Prioritization for Cycle 1

• FORCAST – 2 position chop/nod (dithering)– Mapping

• GREAT– Pointed (Chopping)– Mapping

• FLITECAM Imaging• FORCAST Grism• FLITECAM Grism

12

Universities Space Research Association

V&V Overview• All DCS V&V activities to be documented in V&V Plan for Segment 3

– V&V guidelines documented in SCI-AR-PLA-PM92-2009.• Verification carried out to ensure software meets its formal requirements or

fixes SPRs (bugs). Methods:– Demonstration (functional, security, privacy requirements)– Test (performance requirements)– Inspection (mostly for SPRs)– Analysis (rare)

• Validation carried out to ensure that software meets the needs of users in the operational environment. Methods:– Beta testing with representative users– Simulations (e.g. SIM6 in 2009)

• V&V Activities carried out in separate Test Environment independent of DCS Production Environment.

• Result of V&V activities:– Requirements status matrix updated– Existing SPRs updated– New SPRs generated (as needed)

13

Universities Space Research Association

DCS Verification Overview

• All DCS software (including SSPOT) subject to SW QA Plan and V&V Guidelines.

• Standard verification activities for every DCS release:– V&V Plan updates (SV01, as needed)

• Covered in Design Review– Test Procedure updates (SV02, as needed)– Dry-Run Testing– Establish SW baseline: CCB– Test Readiness Review– Witnessed Testing (USRA SW QA)– Generate Test Records (SV04) and Test Report (SW05)

• Once verification activities are complete, NASA conducts FCA/PCA and issues change request.

• Once change request is approved, software can be deployed to production environment.

14

Universities Space Research Association

SSPOT Validation Planning

• SSPOT Validation Plan to be included in General DCS V&V plan for Segment 3.

• SSPOT Validation activities will involve Science and Mission Ops staff and should include:– SMO User testing against the SSPOT ConOps.– SMO exercises and simulations in preparation for Segment 3 phase II planning– Beta testing with SI teams and other outside users (under controlled conditions)

• Results to be documented in Validation Test Reports and SPRS (as needed).

• Validation activities can be done anytime after formal baseline established (i.e. when the code is ready for formal test).

• Informal validation will also occur as part of development (i.e. as soon as functionality and AOTs are available) as risk reduction – no formal documentation required:– Demos with SPOT Science Working Group– Informal testing with SI teams

15

Universities Space Research Association

SSPOT Development Schedule

• June: Delta Design Review• June - Aug: Implementation and informal test• Sept: Formal Testing• Sept. 30: Release of SSPOT Beta (FORCAST TPCD)

– SSPOT ready for ops simulations and exercises– SSPOT ready for integration with other AOTs

16

Universities Space Research Association

AOT Implementation Schedule

• May – October: AOT Specification and ICD updates• June – October: AOT implementation (XML)• October – February (2012): AOT integration with SSPOT

– Assumes ~3 weeks per AOT– Including informal test with science ops and SI teams

• March 2012: Formal V&V• March 31, 2012: SSPOT released with full set of AOTs for

Cycle 1 Planning• April 2012: Cycle 1 Phase II planning begins

Schedule is very tight: Very little margin for unexpected issues.

17

Universities Space Research Association

Appendix: DCS Archive Status

• All data from Cycle 1 (both raw and pipelined) will be ingested into the DCS Archive and made accessible via DCS web pages.

• Archive enforces proprietary periods and access controls.

• Status:– Database and storage systems complete– Ingestion functions ready, in operations now

for Basic Science– Delivery functions complete, in operations

now for Basic Science– Web access complete, but a number of user

interface issues identified, to be resolved in time for Cycle 1 observations

Universities Space Research Association